RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE THINKING ABOUT THE EWORD Martyn

RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE? THINKING ABOUT THE E-WORD Martyn Hammersley The Open University ESRC Seminar: Making Sense of Evidence and Knowledge Production, March 2009, University of Aberdeen.

Rubbishing the rivals: 'Tradition, Prejudice, Dogma, Ideology' (Caroline Cox, as cited by David Hargreaves 1996) ‘Fad’ and ‘Fashion’ (Robert Slavin 2002) 'Theory' (Ian Chalmers 2005)

The classical model of evidence-based-practice The task of research is to produce evidence that shows which policies and practices are effective, and which are not. Policies should be based on this research evidence. Practitioners should follow what the evidence recommends.

The appeal of the classical model, for researchers: A valued identity in ‘high status and highpowered’ policymaking circles. A greater chance of influencing policy and practice. Access to more substantial funds for their research, or at least for particular kinds of research.

The appeal of the classical model, for policymakers and practitioners: It promises clear and effective guidance in dealing with the problems that they face. • It may also allow them to redirect any responsibility for failure away from themselves.

The threat of criticism Researchers may be criticised for not producing the sort of evidence that is necessary, or their work may generate contradictory or inconclusive findings. Policymakers and practitioners may be deemed to have ignored or misused the available evidence.

The tensions between policy and practice Is the task of the practitioner to implement evidence-based policies? Or is it to consult available evidence to determine what actions should be taken? There can be conflict between these two versions.

(1) Evidence: for or against Evidence is always for or against something: a knowledge claim, an evaluation, or a proposed line of action. So, what issue is not just the validity of the facts themselves but also their relation, as evidence, to whatever it is they are being used to support or challenge.

(2) Evidential function • Evidence does not need to, and indeed cannot, come from some absolutely certain source. • There is no single hierarchy of methods, no gold standard, only better and worse trade-offs against validity threats. • The essential role of commonsense and theory

(3) Not all evidence is strong evidence Evidence Not evidence / Strong Weak evidence No evidence is not the same as not true.

(4) A contextualist view of evidence • There are no absolute clinchers. • Every piece of evidence depends upon background assumptions. • There is always unavoidable reliance on commonsense and theory.

(5) The competition The strength of the evidence for a knowledge claim, or a practical proposal, is always relative to the strength of the evidence for its competitors.

(6) Thresholds of sufficiency • In practical contexts, what is sufficient evidence will depend upon the costs of error. • In research contexts, a single general threshold tends to operate.

(7) No research evidence logically implies a specific policy or practice • We cannot logically derive value conclusions from factual premises alone. • There always potentially conflicting value principles.

Cause and Effect On his death-bed poor Lubin lies; His spouse is in despair; With frequent sobs and mutual cries, They both express their care. ‘A different cause’, says Parson Sly, ‘The same effect may give: Poor Lubin fears that he may die; His wife, that he may live. ’ (Matthew Prior 1664 -1721)

Research, policymaking, and practice as different worlds: • Different goals • Varying background assumptions, deriving from different kinds of experience and sources of knowledge. • Discrepant commitments and interests • Divergent range of audiences As a result, there is variation in what counts as evidence.